At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Speaking from the experience of having debated aspects of Mormonism with Mormons, religious and secular liberals and one 'freethinker,' prior to Mitt Romney throwing his hat into the ring it was forbidden to criticize or even question Mormons or Mormonism - especially by a conservative mainstream Christian. Mormons after all, have suffered the severest 'oppression' similar to blacks and Native Americans which leaves them untouchable. I guess that's changed. Left leaning columnist/blogger Polman appears to be changing that 'rule.'
Quote:
Few Americans voiced concerns about the Mormon faith when Mitt Romney's father ran for president 40 years ago ...
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's "one true church." He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that "I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs."
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping "the church of the devil." Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
As Romney himself recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, "I believe in my faith. I love my faith, and I would in no way, shape, or form try to distance myself from my faith or the fundamental beliefs of my faith." He was a church leader in Massachusetts, as were his forebears out West. And his great-grandfather had five wives, after being personally instructed to practice polygamy by Smith's successor, Brigham Young.
But does all this mean Romney is too weird to lead America? ...
Those arguments might be enough to propel him through the primaries; the general election might be another story. Some questions do seem appropriate.
First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on "faith-promoting" information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, "Some things that are true are not very useful." Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of "a quintessentially American faith" (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called "American exceptionalism," the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
Well now, he's done a great job of highlighting nearly every negative aspect of Mormonism in his column - something I would be raked over the coals for. And it was just a few short months ago the left was absolutely outraged that neocon fundamentalists would be so bigoted as to, as Polman puts it, be "weirded out" at the thought of a Mormon president.
Do you care if Romney is a Mormon? Has the left shifted away from outrage over anti-Mormon bigotry for political expediency?
Romney's religion is only a negative for FundiEv Christians who feel they must oppose him solely on a religious basis and not on the issues.
Romney is quoted as saying he is more worried about being ruled out for being a Mormon than being judged negatively for anything else such as being a flip-flopper, etc. objections which he feels he can overcome.
From my perspective, Romney's religion is completely irrelevant. His ACTIONS are what matter. This is also true of any other candidate. At least fom my perspective. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. No caveats. His religion is irrelevant.
Speaking from the experience of having debated aspects of Mormonism with Mormons, religious and secular liberals and one 'freethinker,' prior to Mitt Romney throwing his hat into the ring it was forbidden to criticize or even question Mormons or Mormonism - especially by a conservative mainstream Christian. Mormons after all, have suffered the severest 'oppression' similar to blacks and Native Americans which leaves them untouchable. I guess that's changed. Left leaning columnist/blogger Polman appears to be changing that 'rule.'
Well now, he's done a great job of highlighting nearly every negative aspect of Mormonism in his column - something I would be raked over the coals for. And it was just a few short months ago the left was absolutely outraged that neocon fundamentalists would be so bigoted as to, as Polman puts it, be "weirded out" at the thought of a Mormon president.
Do you care if Romney is a Mormon? Has the left shifted away from outrage over anti-Mormon bigotry for political expediency?
I think he should take Obama’s lead: everyone should support the separation of church and state, especially the devout.
“For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment…. It was the forbearers of Evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they didn’t want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it. Given this fact, I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism.
“Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.”
True, that may be helpful to Romney with evangelicals, but will the left accept that or are they going to make it a habit to try and undermine him based on his Mormon faith also?
Make that with moderates, not quite as much with evangelicals. Although I think more evangelicals would accept that as a reasonable position than you might think.
Make that with moderates, not quite as much with evangelicals. Although I think more evangelicals would accept that as a reasonable position than you might think.
Pat Robertson didn’t quite see it that way.
“I think what he says is dangerous,” Robertson blustered. “I think that it has a veneer of sophistication and it has a veneer of moderation, a veneer of intelligence, but underneath it he basically is selling out, well, the origins of our nation.
“I think what he says is dangerous,” Robertson blustered. “I think that it has a veneer of sophistication and it has a veneer of moderation, a veneer of intelligence, but underneath it he basically is selling out, well, the origins of our nation.
People need to understand that most of us conservative evangelicals really don't listen to or take marching orders from Pat Robertson, as folks on that other board seem to think. Robertson weirds me out more than Romney ever will.
I would think that actually for the Christians, his moral values would be a positive thing. But as we note with both Bushes, and Clinton and even my buddy Jimmy Carter, thier religon did not show up real strong in most of thier President activites.
It is the left and the MSM that makes this an issue as they try to find a wedge that will break the Republican base . The hypocracy in all of it is Harry Reid is treated like a rock star. His religion doesn't seem to be an issue. I don't even remember the issue being raised when his old man George Romney was a contender.
Linear Mode
